prints at the crime scene. the prosecution argued it was just a mistake, contamination. but did it point to the real killer? as for the so-called jackpot evidence, the cash purchase of the nike sneakers and baseball bat and gloves, who knows who bought those, said the defense, but it wasn t ernie. anyway, those nike sneakers were a size 12 and ernie wore a 9 1/2 or 10. proves he didn t do it, right? and on that point the prosecution had only this. he is very proficient at misinformation and disinformation, and i think that he intentionally bought shoes that were too large for him. ernie scherer took the stand himself, sat up there for the better part of seven days, confident, often smiling, and claiming it was his lifestyle the prosecution put on trial. he s a human. he made mistakes like everybody else does. that doesn t make him a monster.
as for the so-called jackpot evidence, the cash purchase of the nike sneakers and baseball bat and gloves, who knows who bought those, said the defense, but it wasn t ernie. anyway, those nike sneakers were a size 12 and ernie wore a 9 1/2 or 10. proves he didn t do it, right? and on that point the prosecution had only this. he is very proficient at misinformation and disinformation, and i think that he intentionally bought shoes that were too large for him. ernie scherer took the stand himself, sat up there for the better part of seven days, confident, often smiling, and claiming it was his lifestyle the prosecution put on trial. he s a human. he made mistakes like everybody else does. that doesn t make him a monster. would he convince the jury? i think it goes back to him thinking i m at a table and there s all kinds of chips on the middle of the table.
they did. it was overwhelming and terrifying. adrian told the jury about ernie s two years of deception, the double life, all those lies. i made it a point not to look at him during the entire time i was in the room and during the entire testimony. he. was it enough for the jury? ernie s defense jumped to its task, arguing that the evidence, the red chevy camaro on the surveillance video, the dead cell phone at the time of the murders, asking his friends to buy a gun, all of that could have been simply coincidence, it could be explained away. and besides, said the defense, there was actual physical evidence to prove someone other than ernie could have committed the crime, the speck of bloody dna found number one of the shoe prints at the crime scene. the prosecution argued it was just a mistake, contamination. but did it point to the real killer? as for the so-called jackpot
they asked you to testify. they did. it was overwhelming and terrifying. adrian told the jury about ernie s two years of deception, the double life, all those lies. i made it a point not to look at him during the entire time i was in the room and during the entire testimony. was it enough for the jury? ernie s defense jumped to its task, arguing that the evidence, the red chevy camaro on the surveillance video, the dead cell phone at the time of the murders, asking his friends to buy a gun, all of that could have been simply coincidence, it could be explained away. and besides, said the defense, there was actual physical evidence to prove someone other than ernie could have committed the crime, the speck of bloody dna found number one of the shoe prints at the crime scene. the prosecution argued it was just a mistake, contamination. but did it point to the real killer? as for the so-called jackpot evidence, the cash purchase of the nike sneakers and baseball
but did it point to the real killer? as for the so-called jackpot evidence, the cash purchase of the nike sneakers and baseball bat and gloves, who knows who bought those, said the defense, but it wasn t ernie. anyway, those nike sneakers were a size 12 and ernie wore a 9 1/2 or 10. proves he didn t do it, right? and on that point the prosecution had only this. he is very proficient at misinformation and disinformation, and i think that he intentionally bought shoes that were too large for him. ernie scherer took the stand himself, sat up there for the better part of seven days, confident, often smiling, and claiming it was his lifestyle the prosecution put on trial. he s a human. he made mistakes like everybody else does. that doesn t make him a monster. would he convince the jury? i think it goes back to him